Below is a small portion of an address by Daniel Webster, arguing that a profession of belief in the Christian religion not only remain in the Massachusetts constitution as a qualification for office, but be extended to the judiciary. (This actually has applicability to the Terri Schaivo case. the idea is, judges should feel a sense of accountability to God.) Most of the colonies after the Revolution, mind you, required that the elected officals be Christians. I'm no advocating that. But it helps to debunk your claim.

"There is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualification is made applicable only to the executive and the members of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it should not be extended to the judiciary if it were thought necessary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under the fear of God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the constitution has not gone far enough if the provisions already in it were deemed necessary to the public security."

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:58 pm

Sandman

Godzilla

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pmPosts: 948Location: Denver

GTRMAN wrote:

That still does NOTHING to prove your point. It actually solidifies my position that he was a Deist as he expresses no belief that the "Creator" to which he is referring is the Christian God..

Just face it, you're an anti-Christian bigot. If someone in the Republican party expressed what Webster does here, you'd claim he was going against everything this country stood for.

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Last edited by Sandman on Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:01 pm

Rich

Viking Kong

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:00 pmPosts: 8264Location: Denver, CO.

GTRMAN wrote:

Rich L. wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

Rich L. wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

Do think twice before calling me a liar again..

Did I miss something? I don't remember anyone calling anyone a liar.

Here's a cute quote I modified from the Bible, & this would apply to everyone (I'm not singling you out, Gitman).

"Before removing the splinter from my eye, remove the forest from your ASS!"

I think it has a nice ring to it.

I have no idea where you're going with that..

Besides, isn't it considered blasphemy for a Christian to misquote the bible?

Nice try. I said I modified it. I'm trying to lighten the mood of some people who are taking themselves too seriously, right now.

I was being facetious.. Hence the wink..

Got it. Thanks.

_________________Social justice is for pussies!

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:01 pm

GTRMAN

Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pmPosts: 651Location: Maryland

Sandman wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

Sandman wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

Thomas Paine"My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity”

Thomas Paine on "The Study of God"Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in aDiscourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists

It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.

When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .

The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal.

Read COMMON SENSE, Paine's work that was really the thing that got the people behind the Revolution. He makes that case against the King of England using the Old Testament. The argument goes, God told the children of Israel that their only King was Him, and that they should only have Judges. (God was the law giver.) But the people were evil and went against God's wishes and asked for a King. God granted them one, but it wasn't good. Therefore, the people of the colonies should call no one king but God the King.

That still does NOTHING to prove your point. It actually solidifies my position that he was a Deist as he expresses no belief that the "Creator" to which he is referring is the Christian God..

Did you ignore the last paragraph I wrote??? Read the posts, idiot!!!

Woah!! I read the post, man. It still does not mean that he was a Christian or believed in the Christian God.. He was using the King's bible against him. I use the same method all the time when debating with Christians.

Below is a small portion of an address by Daniel Webster, arguing that a profession of belief in the Christian religion not only remain in the Massachusetts constitution as a qualification for office, but be extended to the judiciary. (This actually has applicability to the Terri Schaivo case. the idea is, judges should feel a sense of accountability to God.) Most of the colonies after the Revolution, mind you, required that the elected officals be Christians. I'm no advocating that. But it helps to debunk your claim.

"There is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualification is made applicable only to the executive and the members of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it should not be extended to the judiciary if it were thought necessary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under the fear of God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the constitution has not gone far enough if the provisions already in it were deemed necessary to the public security."

Did I quote Daniel Webster?

BTW, no such legislation would pass.. It would be deemed UnConstitutional. :p

It still does not mean that he was a Christian or believed in the Christian God.. He was using the King's bible against him.

No he's not. That's an incorrect understanding of the text. He's making the case to the colonists who he understood were overwhelmingly believers in the Christian religion. He was not writing to the king of England.

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:07 pm

Sandman

Godzilla

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pmPosts: 948Location: Denver

GTRMAN wrote:

Sandman wrote:

Below is a small portion of an address by Daniel Webster, arguing that a profession of belief in the Christian religion not only remain in the Massachusetts constitution as a qualification for office, but be extended to the judiciary. (This actually has applicability to the Terri Schaivo case. the idea is, judges should feel a sense of accountability to God.) Most of the colonies after the Revolution, mind you, required that the elected officals be Christians. I'm no advocating that. But it helps to debunk your claim.

"There is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualification is made applicable only to the executive and the members of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it should not be extended to the judiciary if it were thought necessary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under the fear of God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the constitution has not gone far enough if the provisions already in it were deemed necessary to the public security."

Did I quote Daniel Webster?

No, but he was an influencial founder. I can dig up lots of similar quotes from others if you need further evidence.

GTRMAN wrote:

BTW, no such legislation would pass.. It would be deemed UnConstitutional. :p

Like I said, not only did it pass, it was in the constitutions of most of the states!

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:10 pm

GTRMAN

Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pmPosts: 651Location: Maryland

Sandman wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

It still does not mean that he was a Christian or believed in the Christian God.. He was using the King's bible against him.

No he's not. That's an incorrect understanding of the text. He's making the case to the colonists who he understood were overwhelmingly believers in the Christian religion. He was not writing to the king of England.

And how do you know this?

To me, it's a man using another man's religion to explain a situation in terms that he can understand. Logical, eh?

Are you a bigot against non-Christians? Since you're so fond of throwing the word around..

No.

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:11 pm

Sandman

Godzilla

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pmPosts: 948Location: Denver

GTRMAN wrote:

Sandman wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

It still does not mean that he was a Christian or believed in the Christian God.. He was using the King's bible against him.

No he's not. That's an incorrect understanding of the text. He's making the case to the colonists who he understood were overwhelmingly believers in the Christian religion. He was not writing to the king of England.

And how do you know this?

Because I've read it.

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:12 pm

Rich

Viking Kong

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:00 pmPosts: 8264Location: Denver, CO.

GTRMAN wrote:

That is why I'm so fond of debate.. It's not personal, it's intellectual.

To a point. The moment I'm no longer learning about my own stance, or the other's, I'm outta here. If you're debating with christians to get them to question their faith, you're wasting your time with me. If you do it to get me to look at where I stand on the issue, I'm in.

I only mention that because you eluded in your previous quote that you debate with christians a lot. I'm just wondering why.

_________________Social justice is for pussies!

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:13 pm

GTRMAN

Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pmPosts: 651Location: Maryland

Sandman wrote:

No, but he was an influencial founder. I can dig up lots of similar quotes from others if you need further evidence.

My challenge was to find conflicting quotes by the people I had originally listed. I'm sure you can find quotes from Christians. That is not the argument.

Sandman wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

BTW, no such legislation would pass.. It would be deemed UnConstitutional. :p

Like I said, not only did it pass, it was in the constitutions of most of the states!

Is it still? Again, it would be stricken down by even the slightest review by the SCOTUS. Nobody ever said mistakes haven't been made.

My understanding is that Thomas Paine was not an Orthodox Chrsitain. Regardless, the nation was hugely influenced by Christianity because most in the colonies were believers in that religion. The government they set up was based upon Christian principles and was not hostile to Christiatinity.

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:14 pm

Sandman

Godzilla

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:26 pmPosts: 948Location: Denver

GTRMAN wrote:

Is it still? Again, it would be stricken down by even the slightest review by the SCOTUS. Nobody ever said mistakes haven't been made.

You're just arguing to argue. I'm outta here, too.

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:17 pm

GTRMAN

Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pmPosts: 651Location: Maryland

Sandman wrote:

My understanding is that Thomas Paine was not an Orthodox Chrsitain. Regardless, the nation was hugely influenced by Christianity because most in the colonies were believers in that religion. The government they set up was based upon Christian principles and was not hostile to Christiatinity.

It's still not hostile to Christianity nor should it be. The country is, and should be, welcome to ALL faiths. Faith should not cause persecution or promotion of any citizen or organization. I don't care if you are atheist, agnostic, Zoroasterian, Hinu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, Confucist, Wiccan, Satanist, et al.. All are welcome. HOWEVER, do NOT presume to push your beliefs on others or try to make them adhere to them. Otherwise, you are crossing the line.

_________________"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of freedom." - John F. Kennedy 1961

Last edited by Sandman on Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:28 pm

GTRMAN

Godzilla

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 12:10 pmPosts: 651Location: Maryland

Sandman wrote:

GTRMAN wrote:

Not arguing.. Debating..

Those words me the same to me. Have a good weekend.

I'm working this weekend so it's not likely. But thanks.. You do the same.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum